Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
true, I am looking forward to testing it out and seeing how it stacks up i've been seriously considering the 24 f1.4 II for a while I think i'll see how these 2 go head to head
Upvote
0
D
D.Sim
Guest
Viggo said:
Anyone have any ideas why it no longer reverse zooms? Why wouldn't they keep that part...
=/
I'm not very strong on the technical side, so I'll need help with explanations...
(Also, with a reverse zoom couldn't you technically encase the whole thing in an extended barrel, and "turn" it into an internal zooming lens? no doubt a very long, and heavy one, but still.... again, not technically strong =P)
Upvote
0
Think about it? How many L series lenses actually have IS? The mkI 24-70 was my first piece of L glass, and before buying it I went back and forth between the 24-105 and the 24-70, debating whether I wanted 2.8 or IS. When it came down to it, I decided to just turn off the IS on the kit lens and see what happened. No IS wasn't a real problem until I got real low in SS. It got me to thinking, really, when am I going to be shooting people, or really anything at all under 1/10th of a second without a tripod? So I went with the 24-70 and haven't missed IS one bit. I became confident enough without IS that i also bought a 10-22 no IS, and the 70-200 2.8 no IS (and mind you, I'm shooting on a 7D, so the 70-200 is effectively a 110-320mm)...
So in short, the only short-coming I can see with the mk11 is the change in filter thread size which puts someone with 2 other lenses at 77mm thread in a pickle for filter investment (maybe I need to get a step up ring, and make the investment in 82mm filters?).
So in short, the only short-coming I can see with the mk11 is the change in filter thread size which puts someone with 2 other lenses at 77mm thread in a pickle for filter investment (maybe I need to get a step up ring, and make the investment in 82mm filters?).
Upvote
0
I've got to say, looking at the MTF charts and the weight reduction, I don't think I'd mind selling my 24-70 L I and trading up to the II. I'd say IS or no, it's worth a significant price difference. as long as performance is strong that's all I'm concerned about in this type of glass. I'm more fired up about the price on the prime lenses, but I'm hoping that if/when they update the 50 f/1.4, 35 f/2 and 28 f/1.8 they won't include IS on those lenses, so they can come in at the same price or slightly less than the f/2.8 IS ones just announced.
Upvote
0
Chuck Alaimo said:
6 Zooms and 11 Primes. Not a small number. Secondly IS isn't just for shorter exposure times. It works fantastically to reduce up/down movements when taking panning shots at any focal length.
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM
Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro
Canon EF 200mm f/2.0 L IS USM
Canon EF 300mm f/4.0 L IS USM
Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II USM
Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM Lens
Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS II USM
Canon EF 500mm f/4.0 L IS II USM
Canon EF 500mm f/4.0 L IS USM
Canon EF 600mm f/4.0 L IS II USM
Canon EF 600mm f/4.0 L IS USM
Canon EF 800mm f/5.6 L IS USM
Upvote
0
liberace said:
How many of those lens have a FOCAL LENGTH BELOW 70? 2.
How many of those lenses have a total FOCAL LENGTH Below 70? 0
In fact with the exception of the 24-105, the MAJORITY of the lenses have the MAJORITY of their focal length ABOVE 100.
100% of the lenses above have focal lengths that exceed 100mm, and 70mm for that fact.
In fact only 2 out of the 17 lenses you list have focal lengths under 200mm. 12 of the lenses have focal lengths of 300mm or greater.
So what conclusions can be drawn. Looks like IS tends to be found on:
-- Longer lenses (200mm and above)
-- Slower lenses (F/4 and above)
Not to say that IS has not crept into some lenses, but not one lens in the list of L lenses from Canon that has IS does not extend greater than 100mm by some degree, and the majority start at 200 or more.
Not one L lens currently has its entire focal length below 100mm for that matter, and in fact, it seems that 100mm seems to be the magic number for when Canon feels IS matters.
Any surprise why the new 24-70 does not have IS? looking at it is 2.8 and does not extend 100mm or greater, looks like it is normal for Canon to not introduce IS to the lens
Upvote
0
briansquibb said:neuroanatomist said:skitron said:
Did you make one into an L-series lens by placing a red rubber band around the end of the barrel?The count was for L lenses...
Darn - I was going to make a killing by painting a red light round my 18-55 IS ::
marekjoz just posted this in the forums: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,3314.0/topicseen.html which seems particularly pertinent here ...
Upvote
0
kubelik said:briansquibb said:neuroanatomist said:skitron said:
Did you make one into an L-series lens by placing a red rubber band around the end of the barrel?
Darn - I was going to make a killing by painting a red light round my 18-55 IS :
marekjoz just posted this in the forums: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,3314.0/topicseen.html which seems particularly pertinent here ...
Refer to topic
How to increase the performance of your Canon lens [humor]
Upvote
0
D
D.Sim
Guest
neuroanatomist said:skitron said:
Did you make one into an L-series lens by placing a red rubber band around the end of the barrel?
Could be a lens bracelet user.... =P
Or who was it that painted his 50mm 1.8 white, with a red ring? ;D
Thing is though: yes, very few lenses below 100mm have IS, but would it be so wrong to put it on? two versions maybe?
But again, that brings back the argument that it becomes a competitor to the 24-105mm IS....
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
